User talk:ElijahPepe

ElijahPepe, as mentioned in a recent GA review, you have a habit of citing ordinary news articles as if they were multi-page journal articles or books. This is not beneficial for readers or necessary for editors. Your talk page (not going back into the archives) has four editors remarking how difficult it is to work with: ,,, and this note from me. Readers shouldn't be forced to look at an sfn and deduce the source is a step away. The preponderance of Wikipedia editors conform to one style of direct citation by URL (not by sfn). URLs were a grand invention. Thank you for your consideration. -SusanLesch (talk) 18:00, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

P.S. Sorry I don't mean to suggest Wikipedia dictates a certain citation style. Of course it doesn't per WP:CITESTYLE. But I think you'll find mainly that editors split per WP:CITEX between using citation templates and freehand typing. Hope this helps. -SusanLesch (talk) 20:19, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

A consistent citation style is required for FA, and it makes it much easier to take an article to FAC if I need to add a book later and all of the citations are in the same format. Per WP:CITEVARYES, bare URLs should be avoided and I will always use a citation template. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 21:37, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

"Consistent citation style" doesn't mean that you use the same template for different types of sources. See Wikipedia:Citing_sources#Examples. See also the Featured Article on The Beatles which cites books (sfn) as well as newspaper and magazine articles (<ref></ref>), with the appropriate templates. That setup doesn't prevent later adding of additional cites. Space4TCatHerder🖖 22:28, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

That article passed FAC sixteen years ago. The expectation is that the same template is used. This setup doesn't prevent adding other citations later. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 22:40, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

The approach used at The Beatles is still acceptable at FAC today. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:17, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

the expectation is that the same template is used - no it's not? the expectation at FAC is that the appropriate templates are used for each type of source and that those are consistent with each other and the overall citation style is harmonious. ... sawyer * any/all * talk 10:34, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

I noticed that, too, e.g., at N7478D, and once someone has set up the references, other editors follow suit until someone changes the format of all of them. When a reference (e.g., this one^[1]) is to be used multiple times, add a name to it like this^[2]. For the second and further citations of this source, use the abbreviated form ^[2]. Space4TCatHerder🖖 21:25, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

Good grief, Space4Time3Continuum2x, that's an impressive job you did at N7478D. That's not a theoretical example, it's a royal pain.

ElijahPepe, I for one am happy to hear you like citation templates. I truly wish Wikipedia mandated their use. But that's not what we're talking about. Do you understand what Space4T did there? -SusanLesch (talk) 23:17, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

Sorry for your troubles. Now seven editors have united on the point. Likely you will understand after you feel better. -SusanLesch (talk) 15:22, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

Add my voice to those objecting to the excessive use of sfn, which I encountered today on the Lindsey Halligan article (and is being discussed there). Funcrunch (talk) 22:26, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

@ElijahPepe: After long, fruitful discussion, we've made a lot of progress. Thanks to ElijahPepe and ~2025-36687-44, the original citation scheme has been restored to Gary Shapley, EJ Antoni, Lindsey Halligan, Stephen Miller, Sean Duffy and Susie Wiles. Plus somebody switched Early life and education of Donald Trump. Remaining on my list are Dan Caine, Pete Hegseth, Howard Lutnick, and Kash Patel. At a few days apiece, I don't mind this task at all but wouldn't refuse your help. (I think you changed a whole article in one edit.) Do you have any draft articles in your pipeline that will switch over any others? Or are we really nearing the end? Best wishes for your project. -SusanLesch (talk) 23:36, 14 December 2025 (UTC)

What remains is Kevin Hassett, Marco Rubio, Ronald D. Johnson, Russell Vought, Steve Witkoff, Tax returns of Donald Trump, and Warren Stephens. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 16:37, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

I looked at some of those people's biographies and found normal citations. Can you please avoid changing their citation scheme when you install your drafts in the future? Changing them without consensus could be considered disruptive editing and it entails unnecessary work to revert. -SusanLesch (talk) 17:16, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

Ticked off that you didn't do this work yourself, ElijahPepe. I offered to help you and got left holding the bag. Also please watch where you're going with your personal drafts: You claimed an article I put up for peer review, Russell Vought in your pipeline. As a side effect of righting this ship, now I am given as #1 in authorship for Susie Wiles, where I wrote absolutely nothing. Also true for Kash Patel, where I wrote nothing. -SusanLesch (talk) 16:38, 21 December 2025 (UTC)

I didn't do the work because I'm not working on these drafts presently. I didn't "claim" any articles, either; I was working on Vought as far back as June. Authorship is completely irrelevant here. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 16:44, 21 December 2025 (UTC)

An FYI on this topic: A basic citation template I like to use. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 03:36, 25 December 2025 (UTC)

Hello, ElijahPepe. This message concerns the Articles for Creation submission or draft page you started, "2025 United States Department of Justice purges".

Drafts that go unedited for six months are eligible for deletion, in accordance with our draftspace policy, and this one has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission, and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you read this, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the draft so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia! DreamRimmer bot II (talk) 20:26, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

Hello, ElijahPepe. This message concerns the Articles for Creation submission or draft page you started, "American Federation of Government Employees v. Office of Personnel Management".

Drafts that go unedited for six months are eligible for deletion, in accordance with our draftspace policy, and this one has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission, and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you read this, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the draft so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia! DreamRimmer bot II (talk) 20:26, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

I've turned this article into a redirect because we already have the article 2025 Washington, D.C. National Guard shooting. Opm581 ^{(talk | he/him)} 00:22, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

Hello, ElijahPepe. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Versant Media, a page you created, has not been edited in at least five months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 22:07, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

Your good article nomination of the article Gary Shapley is under review. See the review page for more information. This may take up to 7 days; feel free to contact the reviewer with any questions you might have. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of LivelyRatification -- LivelyRatification (talk) 23:43, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

Your good article nomination of the article Gary Shapley has been placed on hold, as the article needs some changes. See the review page for more information. If these are addressed within 7 days, the nomination will pass; otherwise, it may fail. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of LivelyRatification -- LivelyRatification (talk) 01:23, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

Just letting you know also that while my review is a bit lengthy, I hope it is helpful in your efforts to improve the Gary Shapley article. Let me know if anything is unclear or confusing (this is only my second GA review, so I may have made some errors or phrased things in an odd manner). My timezone is UTC+11, so I may take a bit to reply, but I am happy to address any concerns or queries you might have. --LivelyRatification (talk) 01:26, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

Your good article nomination of the article Gary Shapley has passed; congratulations! See the review page for more information. If the article is eligible to appear in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you can nominate it within the next seven days. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of LivelyRatification -- LivelyRatification (talk) 01:03, 11 December 2025 (UTC)

Hello, ElijahPepe. Per your request, your account has been granted temporary-account-viewer rights. You are now able to reveal the IP addresses of individuals using temporary accounts that are not visible to the general public. This is very sensitive information that is only to be used to aid in anti-abuse workflows. Please take a moment to review Wikipedia:Temporary account IP viewer for more information on this user right. It is important to remember:

• You must not share IP address data with someone who does not have the same access permissions unless disclosure is permissible as per guidelines listed at Foundation:Policy:Wikimedia Access to Temporary Account IP Addresses Policy.
• Access must not be used for political control, to apply pressure on editors, or as a threat against another editor in a content dispute. There must be a valid reason to investigate a temporary user. Note that using multiple temporary accounts is not forbidden, so long as they are not used in violation of policies (for example, block or ban evasion).

It is also important to note that the following actions are logged for others to see:

• When a user accepts the preference that enables or disables IP reveal for their account.
• Revealing an IP address of a temporary account.
• Listing the temporary accounts that are associated with one or more IP addresses (using the CIDR notation format).

Remember, even if a user is violating policy, avoid revealing personal information if possible. Use temporary account usernames rather than disclosing IP addresses directly, or give information such as same network/not same network or similar. If you do not want the user right anymore then please ask me or another administrator and it will be removed for you. You may also voluntarily give up access at any time by visiting Special:Preferences. Happy editing! – robertsky (talk) 04:32, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

Hi ElijahPepe. Thank you for your work on United States Tech Force. Another editor, Casablanca Rock, has reviewed it as part of new pages patrol and left the following comment:

Hi! Thanks for creating this redirect. I know that this is the result of very recent news, but is there any chance that a mention of this can be added to Kupor's page for the time being.

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|Casablanca Rock}}. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

Casablanca 🪨^(T) 20:02, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

Hi ElijahPepe; I'm not sure that you will be around for the holidays. I've started a new discussion about trimming and condensing the Trump article further on the Talk page there if you have time to take a look. ErnestKrause (talk) 05:11, 21 December 2025 (UTC)

Hi Elijahpepe, thanks for the feedback on my DYK nomination.

I have added ALT1 (regarding Wilson's review of the "spill-proof" mug) to address your concerns about the original hook not being interesting enough. I believe this is the tone you were looking for.

Could you take a look when you have a moment? Thanks! TheArchitectOfYe (talk) 23:52, 26 December 2025 (UTC)

Hello, I wanted to discuss some of your recent editing on Kash Patel. I did the GAR. I want to take a moment to recognize that you have put a lot of work into the article which is valuable to the community. I personally learned a lot from your article and the many excellent sources you have used.

I know you want this to be seen as a good article and are willing to put in the work to make it so. However, in this instance I want to urge you to slow down a bit and listen more the to the community. Your recent comment on removing the nuetrality tag talked about not receiving good review during GAR. I am sorry you feel that way and am certainly willing to reflect on what I can do better during GAR. In that particular GAR I felt like you began to disengage after my extensive feedback. In multiple locations you have stated you were not satisfied with the GAR, but I did not see you take the issue up with me directly. Though maybe I just missed that in which case I apologize. I want to give you this opportunity to take the issue up with me directly if you so choose.

Regarding how you should treat the article going forward, I think you should not disregard my GAR feedback just because you are dissatisfied with the review. As David Eppstein pointed out there are several areas for improvement with this article. Immediately putting up a new GAR without attempting to address the issues from the first, then responding to the QAF with immediately opening a PR which was closed by Z1720 due to itself being a policy violation, and following up by edit warring over the neutrality tag boarders on disruptive editing. Czarking0 (talk) 20:07, 27 December 2025 (UTC)

If you believe the tag should stay, you need to provide reasons for it. Pointing to a page that says nothing about current neutrality issues is not enough. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 21:51, 27 December 2025 (UTC)

A tag has been placed on 2025 United States strikes in Nigeria requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done for the following reason:

AI written

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, pages that meet certain criteria may be deleted at any time.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Yusuf Michael (talk) 10:34, 28 December 2025 (UTC)

An AfD tag has not been placed at the article, and it should not be done. Fix the article. It obviously passes WP:GNG, so follow WP:PRESERVE and fix it. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 18:14, 28 December 2025 (UTC)

Greetings. My request for a peer review went nowhere and I closed that request yesterday. I've been adding a few things before moving to GAN. I expect to expand a bit more based on your draft. If you can find the time, your contributions would be welcome. -SusanLesch (talk) 15:38, 28 December 2025 (UTC)

Sure, I can add it to the list. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 15:49, 28 December 2025 (UTC)

Thanks. Perhaps you can cite his second marriage to Michelle Martin. (You found it in some Politico newsletter.) -SusanLesch (talk) 19:27, 28 December 2025 (UTC)

Are you looking for me to finish the rewrite? elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 19:35, 28 December 2025 (UTC)

Not exactly, I was asking that you provide a citation that can be dereferenced instead of an edit summary. The marriage was not a secret (Mr. Vought's X feed says Michelle Vought is his wife) but the media seems to have been silent. I'm traveling tomorrow so won't be editing for a day or two. -SusanLesch (talk) 23:41, 28 December 2025 (UTC)

Here is that citation. If you're rewriting the whole thing yourself, I'll stay out of it. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 01:02, 29 December 2025 (UTC)

I was hoping you would contribute as you've already done a draft. No need for me to reconstruct all that. Thank you for the citation. I couldn't find it anywhere. -SusanLesch (talk) 03:31, 29 December 2025 (UTC)

Perhaps I worded this wrong. I'd be willing to help, but I don't want to write a dual-article. It tends to lead to conflicts. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 05:17, 29 December 2025 (UTC)

I'm done with Russell Vought for now. Apparently collaboration isn't your strong suit, so you finish this. I came across this C-class article in November, brought it up to B-class and put it up for peer review, in preparation for a GAN. You wrote a draft in June and told me about it when I asked two weeks ago. -SusanLesch (talk) 16:06, 29 December 2025 (UTC)

My remaining two bits are done. It's all yours. What, by the way, is a "dual-article"? -SusanLesch (talk) 17:28, 30 December 2025 (UTC)

What I'm looking to avoid is writing an article at the same time as someone else. There are usually conflicts there. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 17:36, 30 December 2025 (UTC)

Fine. Apparently you are the source of dual articles not me. It's my understanding you are the editor who made drafts in their userspace that doubled up articles that are already in mainspace. Anyway, I marked every mainspace article for which you declared a draft with this HTML note under References: <!--Please retain this citation scheme or else seek consensus for a change per [[WP:CITEVAR]]. --> -SusanLesch (talk) 13:59, 31 December 2025 (UTC)

Your good article nomination of the article Pete Hegseth has failed. See the review page for more information. If or when the reviewer's feedback has been addressed, you may nominate the article again. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Czarking0 -- Czarking0 (talk) 16:46, 28 December 2025 (UTC)

Your good article nomination of the article Charles T. Moran is under review. See the review page for more information. This may take up to 7 days; feel free to contact the reviewer with any questions you might have. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Czarking0 -- Czarking0 (talk) 17:04, 28 December 2025 (UTC)

Your good article nomination of the article Brilyn Hollyhand is under review. See the review page for more information. This may take up to 7 days; feel free to contact the reviewer with any questions you might have. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of CookieMonster755 -- CookieMonster755 (talk) 12:04, 30 December 2025 (UTC)

Hello, ElijahPepe. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or draft page you started, "Versant Media".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material, the draft has been deleted. When you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:27, 30 December 2025 (UTC)

On 1 January 2026, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Early life and education of Donald Trump, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that a young Donald Trump was sent to military school after his father found that he had been purchasing smoke bombs and switchblades in Manhattan? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Early life and education of Donald Trump. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Early life and education of Donald Trump), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to nominate it.

—Ganesha811 (talk) 00:03, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

Your good article nomination of the article Brilyn Hollyhand has been placed on hold, as the article needs some changes. See the review page for more information. If these are addressed within 7 days, the nomination will pass; otherwise, it may fail. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of CookieMonster755 -- CookieMonster755 (talk) 17:23, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

Your good article nomination of the article Brilyn Hollyhand has passed; congratulations! See the review page for more information. If the article is eligible to appear in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you can nominate it within the next seven days. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of CookieMonster755 -- CookieMonster755 (talk) 19:44, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

congratulations on your recently promoted GA article. cookiemonster755 ^(talk) 00:29, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

Hi ElijahPepe. Thank you for your work on George Tidmarsh. Another editor, Klbrain, has reviewed it as part of new pages patrol and left the following comment:

Thanks for this helpful biography for a sometime controversial business leader and scientist. There are enough independent sources to support notability.

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|Klbrain}}. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

Klbrain (talk) 10:24, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

Your good article nomination of the article Charles T. Moran has failed. See the review page for more information. If or when the reviewer's feedback has been addressed, you may nominate the article again. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Czarking0 -- Czarking0 (talk) 16:42, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

Hi ElijahPepe. Thank you for your work on Matt Brasseaux. Another editor, SunDawn, has reviewed it as part of new pages patrol and left the following comment:

Thank you for creating this article! Your efforts and work were greatly appreciated! Have a blessed weekend!

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|SunDawn}}. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

✠ SunDawn ✠ Contact me! 23:43, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

Hi ElijahPepe. Thank you for your work on Proposed leveraged buyout of Electronic Arts. Another editor, 11WB, has reviewed it as part of new pages patrol and left the following comment:

This is a well sourced article, however some of the text might have been generated using an LLM. This is not allowed per WP:NEWLLM. If an LLM has been used, I would advise rewriting those sections.

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|11WB}}. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

11WB (talk) 02:51, 6 January 2026 (UTC)

Hi @ElijahPepe. I'm responding to this diff. Whilst the text was not generated by LLM, it has been detected as being refined by AI. Words such as "consortium" are seldom used. Just to be sure, I will courtesy ping @Gnomingstuff, who volunteers at WP:AIC. They are far more qualified at detecting LLM text than me. 11WB (talk) 05:17, 6 January 2026 (UTC)

@GS doesn't like being pinged, so I will also ping @Athanelar in case they don't respond. 11WB (talk) 05:19, 6 January 2026 (UTC)

I do not use AI tools at all, including and especially on Wikipedia. I can tell you why I specifically chose that term (from an off-site resource you may be aware of already): For the record, "group" sounded strange. I had seen a few sources use "consortium". It wasn't a large group of investors, nor were they loosely associated, nor was the association in equal proportion. Google specifically says that a consortium is "an association, typically of several business companies"; I'm not sure it's that specific, given the Wikipedia page's broad definition, but that tracks with what I wrote. Electronic Arts used the word "consortium" in its press release, as did a few other sources, though I believe it was the BBC that I remember the most and what likely drove me to use that word. I'm willing to explain any word or phrase in that article, as I said. I searched up the most common AI words and "consortium" isn't any of them, so I'm not sure where you got the impression that it is indicative of AI use. The writing style in that article is closest to one I'm working on right now, a rewrite of Russell Vought, so you can see the edit history there. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 05:42, 6 January 2026 (UTC)

At least two of the detectors I ran the article text through showed that it had been refined by AI. Whether or not this is the case, is not something I can definitively say for certain. I applied the banner to let other editors know that it is a possibility. Depending on what AIC find, the banner may be readded. It isn't to insult the work or time you've put into the article, it is simply to follow existing guidelines that discourage LLM use. 11WB (talk) 05:50, 6 January 2026 (UTC)

I've always used GPTZero, and that returned "99% Human". I really don't know where this is coming from, because it isn't any different than the other articles I have written. I said I was willing to explain any words or phrases that you might have seen as AI, and I'm met with nothing in return. Let me be clear, again: I have never, ever, used AI in any article on Wikipedia. Not to write articles, not to find sources, not to "refine text". You can see my GAs here. Absolutely nothing has changed about my writing style. It is didactic, and probably more so on this article, but certainly not AI-generated. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 06:08, 6 January 2026 (UTC)

Per Wikipedia:Large language models § Identifying LLM-generated text: Do not solely rely on artificial intelligence content detection tools (such as GPTZero) to evaluate whether text is LLM-generated, as these tools are unreliable due to their high error rates. jlwoodwa (talk) 06:09, 6 January 2026 (UTC)

The user draft you linked returned with a 14% chance of having been refined by an LLM, on two separate detectors. @Jlwoodwa is correct that these detectors shouldn't be the only thing that is relied upon for finding LLM text, this is why I pinged somebody more experienced than me from the AIC project. 11WB (talk) 06:12, 6 January 2026 (UTC)

Just going to add that I was wrong this time. I apologise, @ElijahPepe. If any AIC editors do see this, please disregard my pings. 11WB (talk) 06:30, 6 January 2026 (UTC)

I'm here anyway, so I will just add that I agree that the text is not AI-generated. Athanelar (talk) 09:06, 6 January 2026 (UTC)

Hi -- since I'm also here anyway, I also don't see any immediately obvious indications that it's AI. I think this might be a rare actual case of someone's natural writing style just happening to resemble AI; their FBI investigation into Donald Trump's handling of government documents draft from August 2022 also comes back "AI-generated" on GPTZero, even though it obviously isn't because it's too early for that. Gnomingstuff (talk) 00:16, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

Hello, ElijahPepe. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Nicole McGraw, a page you created, has not been edited in at least five months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 11:09, 6 January 2026 (UTC)

Hello, ElijahPepe. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:State of New York v. Trump, a page you created, has not been edited in at least five months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 11:09, 6 January 2026 (UTC)

Hi, this is an automated reminder as part of Global reminder bot to let you know that your permission "extendedmover" (Page movers) will expire on 00:00, 13 January 2026 (UTC). For most rights, you will need to renew at WP:PERM, unless you have been told otherwise when your right was approved. To opt out of user right expiry notifications, add yourself to m:Global reminder bot/Exclusion. Leaderbot (talk) 19:41, 6 January 2026 (UTC)

Hi ElijahPepe. Thank you for your work on TrumpRx. Another editor, SunDawn, has reviewed it as part of new pages patrol and left the following comment:

Thank you for creating the article! Your contributions to Wikipedia is greatly appreciated! Have a good day!

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|SunDawn}}. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

✠ SunDawn ✠ Contact me! 13:28, 7 January 2026 (UTC)

Hello, ElijahPepe. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:2025 recession, a page you created, has not been edited in at least five months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 04:07, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

Hello! Your submission of Scott Kupor at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) at your nomination's entry and respond there at your earliest convenience. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Dclemens1971 (talk) 02:45, 15 January 2026 (UTC)

Hello, ElijahPepe. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Federal takeover of the Metropolitan Police Department, a page you created, has not been edited in at least five months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 06:09, 15 January 2026 (UTC)

Hello, ElijahPepe. Your account has been granted the "extendedmover" user right, either following a request for it or demonstrating familiarity with working with article names and moving pages. You are now able to rename pages without leaving behind a redirect and move subpages when moving the parent page(s).

Please take a moment to review Wikipedia:Page mover for more information on this user right, especially the criteria for moving pages without leaving a redirect. Please remember to follow post-move cleanup procedures and make link corrections where necessary, including broken double-redirects when suppressredirect is used. This can be done using Special:WhatLinksHere. It is also very important that no one else be allowed to access your account, so you should consider taking a few moments to secure your password. As with all user rights, be aware that if abused, or used in controversial ways without consensus, your page mover status can be revoked.

Useful links:

• Wikipedia:Requested moves
• Category:Requested moves, for article renaming requests awaiting action.

If you do not want the page mover right anymore, just let me know, and I'll remove it. Thank you, and happy editing! – robertsky (talk) 12:37, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

Hi ElijahPepe, I started a discussion at Talk:2025–26_United_States_measles_outbreak#Move_back_to_original_title? that I would appreciate you responding to! Briefly the current title and Measles resurgence in the United States have confusing overlap, so I believe returning the first article to its original name makes the most sense. satkara❈talk 20:31, 24 January 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for staring the page Killing of Alex Pretti that has become a full-blown article so quickly. It already has almost 300,000 views. --David Tornheim (talk) 10:27, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

Template:Protests against COVID-19 lockdowns in China map has been listed for discussion, which may result in the template being merged or deleted by consensus. You are invited to comment on the proposed action at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 16:37, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

Hello,

I just saw that you replaced Stephen Miller's and Sergio Gor's pages with your drafts.

This is, to put it simply, uncool.

Not only this destroys work from others, it makes Who Wrote That? unusable. Besides, it imposes your favorite citation format, one that is of no relevance to the kind of pages you edit.

Please desist. Selbstporträt (talk) 15:03, 27 January 2026 (UTC)

Rewrites are completely acceptable. WP:TNT has many of the arguments I would share here. The citation issue should no longer be present. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 16:44, 27 January 2026 (UTC)

Neither of these pages were hopelessly irreparable, in fact you took back most of their content. But now you have taken ownership of these pages. This is unacceptable behavior. Selbstporträt (talk) 17:41, 27 January 2026 (UTC)

I don't care about ownership. I never boasted about being the primary author of either article; in fact, there have been many changes to Miller's article since the rewrite. Nor does it matter. If this is unacceptable behavior, go ahead and take this to WP:ANI. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 17:51, 27 January 2026 (UTC)

Again you don't seem to have read the very first sentence of the tag you cite. Start at "Before posting:".

Ownership isn't about you bragging (why should anyone care anyway), but about tools such as Who Wrote That? and Xtools. See for yourself:

https://xtools.wmcloud.org/authorship/en.wikipedia.org/Stephen%20Miller/

When you move a page, you erase its history.

So how am I supposed to bring diffs to ANI if they're gone? Selbstporträt (talk) 19:40, 27 January 2026 (UTC)

I believe this is down to a misunderstanding. I am not deleting revisions or moving pages around; impossible for me to do in the first case and rarely in the second, and always that has been moving articles from draftspace into mainspace where the mainspace page is a redirect. You can still look at the history of Miller's article. Here is the diff in which I copy and pasted my personal changes into Miller's article. The amount of content in that diff alone likely surpassed the original, so it would not be realistic to assume that the authorship is still going to be the same, nor will it. If I change 80% of an article, Xtools is going to say that I changed 80% of an article. That's not an important statistic, it just reflects the article as it currently is. In order to take articles to good article or featured article, the nominator needs to be one of the primary authors. That's going to happen. It doesn't mean that I'm disrespecting your work—I do go back and check the original article to see any sources I might have missed—or anything of that sort. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 19:49, 27 January 2026 (UTC)

Alright. Here's how you can reproduce what I am seeing:

1. Install Who Wrote That?

2. Click on a word you wrote; you should see:

"ElijahPepe (talk | contribs) added this on 20 August 2025 2:55 AM.

Merge draft at User:ElijahPepe/Stephen Miller (advisor). The content from the pre-draft article should be intact, if rewritten. The exception is the Media appearances section, which was not particularly relevant to his biography. Still working on this.-11,921

They have written 33.2% of the page."

3. If you click on the date you get this diff:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1306882316

You should see a complete rewrite, which means that Who Wrote That? does not work anymore for the words that come from the draft.

This is the rewrite problem.

4. Also note that your rewrite has introduced a citation format that wasn't on the page, like "Sfn|Hayasaki|2003" and "Sfn|Ioffe|2016".

This is the citation problem.

Since you haven't created the page, I'm not sure what authorizes you to impose your idiosyncratic citation practice on that page.

Is that clearer?

The only reason I can find to use the Sfn format is if you really need many quotes for the same source. But now all we got is about 50 calls to Guerrero's book. Citing one book that way only weakens support. And it'd be hard to have enough books to justify some kind of hybrid citation system. This is an entry that is mainly supported by web pages. Selbstporträt (talk) 20:17, 27 January 2026 (UTC)

I have used Who Wrote That on my own articles. Seems to work fine for me. It shows the words I added and the words I didn't. If the tool doesn't work right or doesn't show something you expected, that is an issue for whoever made the extension, not me. The citation format was resolved and there is an ongoing process to convert some of the formats in the past. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 20:24, 27 January 2026 (UTC)

I don't think the citation issue is resolved at all.

To remove 11,921 words on the page in one go to introduce it is not OK.

As long as we understand one another, my job here is done. Selbstporträt (talk) 20:33, 27 January 2026 (UTC)

It is resolved. If you want to talk about the use of shortened footnotes for books, which is practically necessary, address it on the talk page, not here.

We're not talking about 11,921 words, we're talking about 11,921 characters. Most of that is references: a single citation is about 600 words, and some of the references that used to be there were converted to citations to Guerrero's book. The page size script has the diff before my rewrite at 5494 words, compared to the rewrite, which was 5757 words. I would estimate possibly twenty to twenty-five references duplicated what was in Guerrero's book, which comes out to about 12,000 to 15,000 characters. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 21:41, 27 January 2026 (UTC)

The fact that your edit "only" added 200 words reinforces my point: by copying the rewrite in your own space and then porting it back, the editorship is lost. Who Wrote That loses all trace of it.

Books don't require the "Sfn" template: see WP:CITESHORT, CITESTYLE and:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Sfn#Other_author%E2%80%93date_citation_templates

See also WP:WHENINROME, especially "templates should not be added without consensus to an article that already uses a consistent referencing style", and WP:CITEVARNO in extenso.

Furthermore, there are issues with the actual citations, for instance:

- The Works cited section does not list most of the citations (as if news pieces were not work!);

- Chapters are wrongly cited: it should be ABC, 1234, in DEF etc (only one line);

- Most of the references are from books by journalists: it makes little sense to distinguish pieces investigations published in magazines from interviews published in books; the best case is when we have a topic where monographies and newsies collide;

- There is only one book that justifies adding footnotes, and all we got is a page number; why not use the opportunity to give quotes?

The main problem shortened footnotes solves is making multiple references easier. For the kind of page you are working on, having to use one references 20 times is a weakness, not a strength. One easy way to bypass it would be to use Guerrero's sources themselves, which should be news pieces for the most part.

There are pages for which "sfn" makes sense. This may not be one of them; Gor's page, definitely not. As long as you won't use the "ref" tag systematically for such page, editors will be scratching their heads.

I did not come here to escalate things upstairs, but to save time. I already spent a few days correcting the Musk-Trump page you created. We share many interests. It'd be nice if we could agree on how to proceed. Selbstporträt (talk) 01:19, 28 January 2026 (UTC)

That is how the tool works, yes. Why would it say that someone else wrote a sentence I wrote?

The citation issue was already discussed here. I'm not using shortened footnotes for any citations except for books for any rewrites going forward. It is acceptable for an article to have shortened footnotes for books and regular references for articles. Early life and education of Donald Trump just became a featured article yesterday. Quotes are not necessary, either. The other points you mention are lost on me. Citation style is not strictly enforced on Wikipedia. If that is your only point, then there isn't anything to discuss.

If you're looking for an off-ramp: WP:BRD applies. You are free to revert any of my rewrites if that is the issue. I do try to keep most, if not all, of the content from before the draft. It sounds as though your issue is with Who Wrote That; I don't have a solution for that. Talk to the extension developers. Likewise, if you're talking about the citation issues at Miller's article, bring it up on that talk page. I didn't redo the references on that article. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 01:28, 28 January 2026 (UTC)

If you look closely at the diff I cited, you should see that you rewrote sentences others wrote before you. Had you made the same edit in the page itself, I believe WWT would have spotted it. To see an example, just use WWT on the actual page: edits on snippets preserve whatever lie outside them.

Now, I see that Susan already told you the same thing I did:

(1) "Can you please avoid changing their citation scheme when you install your drafts in the future? Changing them without consensus could be considered disruptive editing and it entails unnecessary work to revert."

(2) "Also please watch where you're going with your personal drafts".

She was displeased that you didn't offer to correct the citations yourself, which is more than understandable. Now I feel I need to do the same, as 20 cites to a book few can access isn't enough.

Further, Space4T suggested:

"When a reference (e.g., this one[1]) is to be used multiple times, add a name to it like this[2]. For the second and further citations of this source, use the abbreviated form [2]."

This could work for books too!

But fine. Let's end it there. I will try to find a citation scheme that will help everyone.

Thank you for your tireless efforts to provide light on all these luminaries! Selbstporträt (talk) 02:50, 28 January 2026 (UTC)

I moved the page for the government shutdown into the mainspace because I believe that it meets notability guidelines and should have an article. I invite you to nominate the article for deletion if you think that it does not and should be deleted or redirected. It is necessary to have a discussion about this instead of just moving it to draft space even though it is already ready to be published, which gets us nowhere. I am sorry for undoing your actions but we need to have an AfD discussion instead of just redirecting or moving the page. Thanks Cyrobyte (talk) 05:07, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

Your good article nomination of the article Karoline Leavitt is under review. See the review page for more information. This may take up to 7 days; feel free to contact the reviewer with any questions you might have. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Vigilantcosmicpenguin -- Vigilantcosmicpenguin (talk) 05:02, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

Hi ElijahPepe, just wanted to let you know that I changed the citation format on Gregory Bovino from shortened footnotes to in-line references. I figured it was easier, especially on mobile/tablets, to go to the cited page. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 15:51, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

Your good article nomination of the article T. Elliot Gaiser has been placed on hold, as the article needs some changes. See the review page for more information. If these are addressed within 7 days, the nomination will pass; otherwise, it may fail. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Czarking0 -- Czarking0 (talk) 06:23, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

Your good article nomination of the article T. Elliot Gaiser has passed; congratulations! See the review page for more information. If the article is eligible to appear in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you can nominate it within the next seven days. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Czarking0 -- Czarking0 (talk) 19:01, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

Hello, ElijahPepe. This message concerns the Articles for Creation submission or draft page you started, "Canada–United States trade war".

Drafts that go unedited for six months are eligible for deletion, in accordance with our draftspace policy, and this one has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission, and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you read this, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the draft so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia! DreamRimmer bot II (talk) 11:26, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

Hello, ElijahPepe. This message concerns the Articles for Creation submission or draft page you started, "Nicole McGraw".

Drafts that go unedited for six months are eligible for deletion, in accordance with our draftspace policy, and this one has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission, and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you read this, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the draft so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia! DreamRimmer bot II (talk) 11:26, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

Hello, ElijahPepe. This message concerns the Articles for Creation submission or draft page you started, "State of New York v. Trump".

Drafts that go unedited for six months are eligible for deletion, in accordance with our draftspace policy, and this one has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission, and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you read this, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the draft so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia! DreamRimmer bot II (talk) 11:26, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Israeli invasion of the Gaza Strip (disambiguation) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Israeli invasion of the Gaza Strip (disambiguation) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

— An anonymous username, not my real name 03:22, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

Hello, ElijahPepe. This message concerns the Articles for Creation submission or draft page you started, "2025 recession".

Drafts that go unedited for six months are eligible for deletion, in accordance with our draftspace policy, and this one has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission, and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you read this, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the draft so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia! DreamRimmer bot II (talk) 04:23, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

I have no objection to your move. I had titled it that way because those words are a unique phrase/unit coined by Durham. In doing so, he went further than the Russians who created this disinformation. He really carried water for them.

You may find this analysis interesting. Marcy Wheeler is an experienced subject-matter expert:

• "And Durham made this report the cornerstone of his investigation by fabricating a claim that even the Russians didn’t make about Hillary: that she wanted to promote a false narrative about Trump, rather than demonstrate all the true and damning Russian ties Trump had that Fusion had already fed to Franklin Foer by early July 2016." - John Durham’s Disinformation Problem (italics original)

I doubt that the rename will create any problems. The body can still place those words in quotes, so search engines will still find it. Carry on the good work. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 23:19, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

Perhaps Clinton plan intelligence would work better? I had actually thought of the use of quotations at Pizzagate conspiracy theory; Pizzagate isn't an official term either. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 23:36, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

It's simpler to just call it what RS call it, rather than have to add "conspiracy theory" Clinton plan intelligence (conspiracy theory). That's too complicated and unnecessary. We usually deal with conspiracy theories by labeling them right in the title in one way or another, especially false ones.

This is an example of Durham going too far in his mission of whitewashing/sanewashing Trump of any connection to Russian election interference. He not only totally failed, he had to reaffirm the findings made by many other official investigations. Even the Russians didn't say "false". Durham added that. Hillary and the rest of the world didn't need to resort to making any false allegations as there was plenty of evidence of illicit and deceptive connections and contacts between Trump's campaign and Russians, plus his own statements and actions, and much more found later. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 00:13, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

Hello, ElijahPepe. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or draft page you started, "Federal takeover of the Metropolitan Police Department".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material, the draft has been deleted. When you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:29, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

Your good article nomination of the article Karoline Leavitt has passed; congratulations! See the review page for more information. If the article is eligible to appear in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you can nominate it within the next seven days. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Vigilantcosmicpenguin -- Vigilantcosmicpenguin (talk) 19:33, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

Hi ElijahPepe, I have question here: .

Why did you remove Politico.com from this article along with two other sources related to Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources, but failed to mention the removal of this reliable source within your edit summary?

• Per WP:RSP, "Politico is considered generally reliable for American politics." Thanks, -- Ooligan (talk) 22:24, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

The source was duplicated. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 22:36, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

Hi! I'm Robloxguest3. Your good article nomination of Barron Trump is now under review. If it passes, I will notify you. Before nominating, remember to make sure there aren't any listed issues! Cheers! Robloxguest3 (talk) 17:31, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

Your good article nomination of the article Barron Trump is under review. See the review page for more information. This may take up to 7 days; feel free to contact the reviewer with any questions you might have. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Robloxguest3 -- Robloxguest3 (talk) 17:37, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

Your good article nomination of the article Barron Trump has passed; congratulations! See the review page for more information. If the article is eligible to appear in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you can nominate it within the next seven days. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Robloxguest3 -- Robloxguest3 (talk) 18:34, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

Hello, ElijahPepe. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:2026 Republican National Convention, a page you created, has not been edited in at least five months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 20:08, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

Hello, ElijahPepe. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Bushido (upcoming film), a page you created, has not been edited in at least five months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 22:08, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

Your good article nomination of the article Alex Pfeiffer (political advisor) is under review. See the review page for more information. This may take up to 7 days; feel free to contact the reviewer with any questions you might have. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of RandFreeman -- RandFreeman (talk) 18:09, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

Your good article nomination of the article Barron Trump is under review. See the review page for more information. This may take up to 7 days; feel free to contact the reviewer with any questions you might have. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of FloblinTheGoblin -- FloblinTheGoblin (talk) 23:08, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

Your good article nomination of the article Barron Trump has passed; congratulations! See the review page for more information. If the article is eligible to appear in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you can nominate it within the next seven days. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of [[User:|User:]] -- [[User:|User:]] ([[User talk:|talk]]) 01:33, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

Your good article nomination of the article Alex Pfeiffer (political advisor) has been placed on hold, as the article needs some changes. See the review page for more information. If these are addressed within 7 days, the nomination will pass; otherwise, it may fail. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of RandFreeman -- RandFreeman (talk) 05:01, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

Your good article nomination of the article Bill Pulte is under review. See the review page for more information. This may take up to 7 days; feel free to contact the reviewer with any questions you might have. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Robloxguest3 -- Robloxguest3 (talk) 23:32, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

Your good article nomination of the article Joe Kent is under review. See the review page for more information. This may take up to 7 days; feel free to contact the reviewer with any questions you might have. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Kwkintegrator -- Kwkintegrator (talk) 01:32, 24 February 2026 (UTC)

On 25 February 2026, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Scott Kupor, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Scott Kupor had not heard of the United States Office of Personnel Management until he was suggested to lead it? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Scott Kupor. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Scott Kupor), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to nominate it.

HurricaneZeta^C 12:02, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

Your good article nomination of the article Alex Pfeiffer (political advisor) has passed; congratulations! See the review page for more information. If the article is eligible to appear in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you can nominate it within the next seven days. Please also consider reviewing somebody else's nomination to help keep the backlog down. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of RandFreeman -- RandFreeman (talk) 02:01, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

Your good article nomination of the article Barron Trump is under review. See the review page for more information. This may take up to 7ten days; feel free to contact the reviewer with any questions you might have. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Mdm.Bla -- Mdm.Bla (talk) 22:31, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

Your good article nomination of the article Joe Kent has passed; congratulations! See the review page for more information. If the article is eligible to appear in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you can nominate it within the next seven days. Please also consider reviewing somebody else's nomination to help keep the backlog down. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Kwkintegrator -- Kwkintegrator (talk) 17:32, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

Hello, ElijahPepe. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:2025 United States constitutional crisis, a page you created, has not been edited in at least five months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 04:08, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

Hello, ElijahPepe. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Sean Parnell (Pennsylvania politician), a page you created, has not been edited in at least five months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 04:08, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

Your good article nomination of the article Barron Trump has been placed on hold, as the article needs some changes. See the review page for more information. If these are addressed within 7 days, the nomination will pass; otherwise, it may fail. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Mdm.Bla -- Mdm.Bla (talk) 05:00, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

Hello, ElijahPepe. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or draft page you started, "Aaron Siri".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material, the draft has been deleted. When you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:07, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

Hello, ElijahPepe,

Thank you for creating Anthropic–United States Department of Defense dispute.

I have tagged the page as having some issues to fix, as a part of our page curation process and note that:

Please add proper categories in the article.

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|Agent VII}}. Remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. For broader editing help, please visit the Teahouse.

Delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

Agent 007 (talk) 18:06, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Reddit API controversy is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Reddit API controversy until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

1keyhole (talk) 09:29, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

Your good article nomination of the article Barron Trump has passed; congratulations! See the review page for more information. If the article is eligible to appear in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you can nominate it within the next seven days. Please also consider reviewing somebody else's nomination to help keep the backlog down. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Mdm.Bla -- Mdm.Bla (talk) 16:31, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

It’s not like we haven’t seen him do this kind of thing before.Dewey, Cheatham, & Howe (talk) 13:45, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

I'm not downplaying it at all. I don't believe it should be in the lede yet. It is very difficult to write a summary of someone's tenure when it is still occurring. Carr is obviously no different, given the range of comments he makes on the media. Until something of substance occurs, it isn't worth mentioning a singular remark. Trump's lede doesn't mention any of the various statements he's made in the past on social media, but rather his actions. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 16:29, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

Hello, ElijahPepe. This message concerns the Articles for Creation submission or draft page you started, "2026 Republican National Convention".

Drafts that go unedited for six months are eligible for deletion, in accordance with our draftspace policy, and this one has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission, and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you read this, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the draft so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia! DreamRimmer bot II (talk) 19:26, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

Hello, ElijahPepe. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or draft page you started, "Bushido".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material, the draft has been deleted. When you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:41, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

Just want to notify you that I removed the "associations" language in the Joe Kent leas. Users (including myself) opposed its addition and the onus is on its inclusion. An ongoing discussion is on the page as we speak.

My opinion is "no". We had a similar situation occur on Graham Platner's page, from the tattoos to association allegations, and the clear consensus was to only list it briefly in the body. Additionally, Kent has been criticized by Groypers and Proud Boys, and many of the claims are sourced directly from the previously mentioned themselves, neither of which could be considered infallible. News agencies were not able to verify rhe claims.

Let's work it out on there, thank you. Jollyrime (talk) 21:59, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

As far as I'm aware, the only discussion has been with another user who asked for it to be added. I agreed because much of the content in that campaign section concerns the allegations. Whether they're true or not—I don't really know myself, and I leave my opinions off Wikipedia—it damaged his campaign. It would be amiss to omit it. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 22:05, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

The "far-right" talk page subsection is what I was referring to. I brought up Platner because a Wikipedia administrator a few months ago told me that accusations like this should be left out on politician's pages. Not sure if that was accurate. Jollyrime (talk) 22:23, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

An administrator's role is to handle vandalism and arbitrate disputes. I'm not going to discuss Platner since it's a separate article. It is possible to cover accusations, but they must be well-sourced and exact. In order words, written properly. As far as I know, I have done that, and I did it with the express purpose of talking about controversies that faced his campaign. I am not trying to insinuate that he is a white nationalist, only that he was accused of associating with them and that negatively affected his campaign. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 22:36, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

Hello,

This has been quite the month for the Joe Kent article. Wanted to know whether you still feel the GA status is warranted or if the flurry of recent activity might mean a reconsideration might be warranted. I haven't had a chance to re deep-dive since his resignation, but this is obviously a bit of a different article than when I reviewed it recently, and it also is no longer stable. My instinct is to just let it sit, but would appreciate your opinion. Kwkintegrator (talk) 15:27, 21 March 2026 (UTC)

The letter of the law is that instability would cause a review to be failed, but the article hasn't fundamentally changed. A few rewrites of the lede, some minor changes everywhere else, and a new section with two paragraphs is not substantial. Most of the editing has subsided since the resignation, so in my estimation, it isn't an issue. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 15:35, 21 March 2026 (UTC)

Sounds good, that makes sense. Kwkintegrator (talk) 17:46, 21 March 2026 (UTC)

Hello, ElijahPepe. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or draft page you started, "Ending Radical Indoctrination in K-12 Schooling".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material, the draft has been deleted. When you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:43, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

Hello, ElijahPepe. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Jordan Wiggins, a page you created, has not been edited in at least five months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 21:06, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

Hello, ElijahPepe. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:2025 United States nuclear tests, a page you created, has not been edited in at least five months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 03:06, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

Hello, ElijahPepe. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or draft page you started, "2025 United States constitutional crisis".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material, the draft has been deleted. When you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:12, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

Hello, ElijahPepe. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or draft page you started, "Sean Parnell".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material, the draft has been deleted. When you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:25, 3 April 2026 (UTC)

Your good article nomination of the article Ross Worthington is under review. See the review page for more information. This may take up to 7 days; feel free to contact the reviewer with any questions you might have. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Wikipedian12512(alt) -- Wikipedian12512(alt) (talk) 14:25, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

Your good article nomination of the article Ross Worthington has failed. See the review page for more information. If or when the reviewer's feedback has been addressed, you may nominate the article again. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Wikipedian12512(alt) -- Wikipedian12512(alt) (talk) 17:05, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

Hello, ElijahPepe. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:United States Department of Justice investigation into the network of Jeffrey Epstein, a page you created, has not been edited in at least five months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 22:08, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

		The Socratic Barnstar
		{{{1}}}

I disagree with some of what you said, but you are good at arguing. Wikipedian12512(alt) (talk) 16:00, 19 April 2026 (UTC)

Hi ElijahPepe, Around 18 April you nominated several articles I created for deletion and redirected a number of related executive order articles. In the AfD discussions, almost all editors have supported keeping the pages. Could you please consider reverting the redirects and, if needed, opening talk page discussions or AfDs so we involve other editors here too? My view is that these articles passed AfC and meet notability, so should remain standalone. Thanks.

Note: I am talking here exclusively about all the redirected articles, not the current AfDs.

The affected articles are listed on my user page; it is essentially most of the executive order articles I created. 𝓛𝓲𝓸𝓷𝓶𝓮𝓻𝓽𝓮𝓻𝓣𝓗𝓔 (talk) 22:18, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

The order pages need to be discussed on a case-by-case basis. Most of your articles were very short and could easily fit into another page, per the rationale at WP:MERGETEXT. Separate articles on orders ars not necessary. You are free to revert the redirects, which I performed as WP:BRD. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 22:24, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

I agree the pages should be considered on a case-by-case basis. I would appreciate it if you could revert the redirects and start discussions where you consider it necessary. Thanks! 𝓛𝓲𝓸𝓷𝓶𝓮𝓻𝓽𝓮𝓻𝓣𝓗𝓔 (talk) 08:29, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

Respectfully, I'm not the one who disagrees with the redirects. If you disagree with them, you should do them. The point is that I did many bold edits, which other editors are free to revert. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 16:12, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

Hello, ElijahPepe. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Injustice (book), a page you created, has not been edited in at least five months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 07:07, 25 April 2026 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article 2026 White House Correspondents' Dinner is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article is being discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2026 White House Correspondents' Dinner until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the AfD notice from the article until the discussion is closed.

shane (talk to me if you want!) 02:27, 26 April 2026 (UTC)